Judge Refuses To Extradite Julian Assange, Citing US Prison Conditions & Assange's Mental Health

from the a-slight-win-for-journalism dept

Even if you think that Julian Assange conspired against the US with the help of Russia, as some allege, you should still be extremely concerned about the US's prosecution of him. As we've explained, the details in the indictment would criminalize many activities that journalists do every single day. It would be a massive expansion of how the Espionage Act was interpreted and would try to blame him for hacking he had nothing to do with.

So, at least for now, it's good to see that a UK court has refused to extradite Assange to the US. The reasons have little to do with the sketchiness of the underlying case, but rather is a condemnation of US prison conditions. The judge notes that in Assange's current mental state, he'd likely end up killing himself if placed in the US prison system, but rejected the claims from Assange that the prosecution is politically motivated, and therefore invalid.

In a mixed ruling for Assange and his supporters, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser rejected defense arguments that the 49-year-old Australian faces a politically motivated American prosecution that rides roughshod over free-speech protections. But she said Assange’s precarious mental health would likely deteriorate further under the conditions of “near total isolation” he would face in a U.S. prison.

“I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him to the United States of America,” the judge said.

The US has already said it's appealing the ruling, so this is far from over. It's unclear if Assange's team will be appealing the rejection of the political prosecution claims, as well as the claims that Assange was acting as a journalist. The Freedom of the Press Foundation, who was an early supporter of Assange, before later fighting with him, celebrated the ruling:

Today’s ruling is a huge sigh of relief for anyone who cares about press freedom. While the judge’s opinion contains many worrying assertions that disregard journalists’ rights, her rejection of the Trump administration’s extradition request means the US government likely won’t be able to obtain any precedent that would criminalize common newsgathering and publishing practices. And that is a very good thing.

I agree that it's good that the extradition attempt has failed for now, but I'm extremely worried about the judge rejecting the free speech/journalism/political attack arguments. Again, much of what Assange did -- even if you disagree with it or think it was done under the auspices of a foreign country -- should not be considered criminal. The descriptions in the indictment could easily apply to tons of journalists, both in the US and abroad.

Whether or not Assange is a horrible person is unrelated to the legal principles at stake. The entire case appears to be a politically motivated attack on publishing embarrassing documents, and that should raise significant 1st Amendment questions.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, espionage act, extradition, free speech, journalism, julian assange, uk, us

Owner of 'Derby Pie' Trademark Sues Newspaper For Using The Term, Publishing Recipe

from the and-they're-off! dept

Long-time Techdirt readers may recall that the "Derby Pie", a notable dessert sold in Kentucky chiefly around the time of The Kentucky Derby, has been the previous subject of trademark issues. Way back in 2013, the EFF posted a special recipe for its "mean-spirited censorship pie" after Kern's Kitchen, headed by Alan Rupp, went on a threat blitz against a bunch of blogs for posting their own recipes for "derby pie". Rupp has a trademark on the term, see, and seems to think that trademark means that he is in universal control of anyone using it for their own recipes, regardless of whether those recipe posts cause any customer confusion, are used in actual commerce, or generally violate the other aspects of trademark protection statutes. He's wrong about that, of course, but his threats are often met with shivering compliance.

But Rupp took this to a whole new level when he filed a trademark suit in 2018 against the Louisville Courier-Journal, a newspaper, for both posting its own Derby Pie recipe and for mentioning that other bakeries had derby pie products. The court promptly dismissed the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca Jennings, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dismissed Rupp’s complaint in March and ruled the newspaper had used the term in a “non-trademark” fashion.

Jennings called Rupp’s complaint “skeletal,” finding he failed to establish a plausible claim that a consumer would think the newspaper asserted ownership of the mark or itself was a manufacturer of Derby Pie.

In other words, there was no chance for customer confusion because, well, The LCJ is a damned newspaper. As to mentioning that other bakeries had products that existed, the LCJ reporting on that factual occurrence had nothing to do with trademark law and is protected First Amendment speech.

But rather than admitting how absurd this all was and slinking away, Rupp instead appealed the ruling. At this point, Rupp's legal team is asserting that dismissal at the pleading stage was incorrect, as courts are supposed to give deference to plaintiffs at that stage. Which is true, except in cases when the case has little to no chance of succeeding, which is certainly the case here. The LCJ itself responded, pointing out that First Amendment is a thing.

Attorney Michael Abate argued on behalf of the Courier-Journal and told the panel there is “no conceivable basis” for a trademark infringement claim, but also pointed out the newspaper’s speech is protected under the First Amendment.

“We’re talking about news stories that are plainly protected under the First Amendment.

Add to that the non-commercial nature of the article's recipe (the newspaper isn't selling pies or the recipe itself), the lack of monetary harm to Rupp, and the fact that these attacks are on news coverage and you have a, ahem, recipe for a failed lawsuit. Rupp possibly should be going after other bakeries using his trademark, but not a newspaper.

A panel of judges is currently reviewing all of this, but one expects this appeal will be tossed as quickly as the original lawsuit.

Filed Under: alan rupp, copyright, derby pie, journalism, kentucky, recipe, trademark
Companies: louisville courier-journal

ICE Withdraws Demand For Journalists' Sources After Having Its Unconstitutional Demand Outed By BuzzFeed

from the government-is-kindly-invited-to-go-fuck-itself dept

They say "sunshine is the best disinfectant." Sometimes, though, sunshine is the best RAID. When you've got government cockroaches (feel free to pronounce it like Tony Montana) trying to crawl all over your stuff, the best thing you can do is point all the wattage/candlepower you can on its indiscretions.

Earlier this month, ICE tried to pull some fucked up shit. It sent a subpoena -- one issued by its office, not a judge -- to BuzzFeed. It asked the journalists there to turn over information on their sources, apparently in hopes of closing the loop on internal investigations into leaked documents.

BuzzFeed refused. Even better, BuzzFeed posted the bullshit "request" ICE made -- one that asked the site's journalists to remain silent in the face of government overreach. The subpoena came with this request appended;

“You are requested not to disclose the existence of this summons for an indefinite period of time. Any such disclosure will impede this investigation and thereby interfere with the enforcement of federal law.”

BuzzFeed ignored this, along with the rest of the subpoena. Which it should. This was just internal paperwork masquerading as a government-sanctioned order. ICE has no legal right to demand information on BuzzFeed's sources. It seems highly unlikely any court would allow this incursion on First Amendment protections. Bypassing the court by issuing its own paperwork shouldn't be allowed. But somehow it is. Journalistic concerns know these requests are worth less than the paper they're printed on. The problem is that not everyone knows that and degenerates like ICE are counting on people being ignorant of their Constitutional rights and protections.

BuzzFeed knows what the government can and can't do without judicial blessing. So it published its refusal along with ICE's faux "demand" it remain silent about the agency's attempted Constitutional bypass. In response to its garbage being made public domain, ICE has rescinded its attempt to turn confidential sources into government witnesses/prosecution targets.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials said Wednesday that it would not enforce a subpoena issued last week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources, a retreat from its earlier, stunning attempt to interfere with a news outlet operating under the protections of the First Amendment.

By "won't," ICE means "can't." It would be the rare judge that would approve of ICE violating long-held First Amendment protections for journalists and their sources. Even if they found a compliant judicial pawn, any challenge by BuzzFeed would see this bogus subpoena tossed onto the trash heap of ICE's trash history by the next judge down the line.

The government cannot do this. And the government knows this. That ICE even tried indicates it's been huffing whatever the Trump administration has been shoving into its paper bags. Just because the outgoing Prez has a hard-on for booting brown people out of the country doesn't change the Constitutional calculus.

Filed Under: dhs, ice, journalism, protecting sources, sources, subpoena
Companies: buzzfeed

ICE Sends Subpoena To BuzzFeed, Hoping To Force It To Turn Over Its Sources

from the going-nowhere-with-this-but-still-a-problem dept

Four years of Trump was more than enough time to weaponize federal agencies against journalists. The administration has routinely condemned critical press outlets as "fake news" and Trump's fervent embrace of border patrolling made it easier for the DHS and its agencies to abuse their power.

The Constitution doesn't seem to matter much to those "securing" the nation. The CBP put a bunch of journalists, activists, and immigration lawyers on a watchlist, subjecting them to additional intrusive searches at border crossings and airports. The DHS tried to top this by compiling dossiers on journalists who covered anti-police brutality protests in Oregon, as well as journalists who had published leaked DHS documents.

The assault on the Constitution continues, with another DHS component deciding the protections given to journalists aren't nearly as important as figuring out who's leaking government documents.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators issued a subpoena this week demanding BuzzFeed News identify its sources — an extraordinary attempt by the government to interfere with a news outlet acting under the protections of the First Amendment, and a move that the agency’s former chief lambasted as “embarrassing.”

[...]

The subpoena, issued on Dec. 1 by an agent with the ICE Office of Professional Responsibility, concerns emails sent to ICE attorneys on a fast-track deportation program and plans to fine certain undocumented immigrants. It demands that BuzzFeed News “provide all documentation including, but not limited to: (1) date of receipt, (2) method of receipt, (3) source of document, and (4) contact information for the source of the document.”

BuzzFeed has refused to comply with this subpoena. It has also apparently ignored the gag order ICE attached to its demand for info. Not that it was much of a gag order. It "requested" BuzzFeed not disclose the contents of the subpoena but, like the subpoena itself, it's pretty much unenforceable.

A court didn't issue this request. ICE did. It can write its own subpoenas but it really can't make anyone comply without getting a court involved. And it seems unlikely ICE will get a court involved because very few courts are going to sign off on obvious First Amendment violations.

But even if it's useless, it's still a problem. ICE could try to get courts involved and turn journalists into extensions of internal investigations. It could mass mail subpoenas to as many press outlets as it can, hoping for a hit. The problematic part isn't how badly it's being done, but that it's being done at all.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, freedom of the press, ice, intimidation, journalism, source protection, sources, subpoena
Companies: buzzfeed

Content Moderation Case Study: Documenting Police Brutality (2007)

from the documenting-abuse-vs-promoting-abuse dept

Summary: Wael Abbas is an Egyption journalist/activist who began documenting protests in Egypt in 2006, including multiple examples of Egyptian police brutality, which he would then upload to YouTube.

In 2007, after posting a few explicit examples of Egyptian police brutality, he discovered that his entire YouTube account was shut down, taking down 181 videos covering not just police brutality, but also voting irregularities, and street protests. At first YouTube refused to comment on this, and only told Abbas that the account was shut down due to multiple complaints about the content.

Later, after the US press got ahold of the story, YouTube put out a statement saying:

Our general policy against graphic violence led to the removal of videos documenting alleged human rights abuses because the context was not apparent

Having reviewed the case, we have restored the account of Egyptian blogger Wael Abbas. And if he chooses to upload the video again with sufficient context so that users can understand his important message, we will of course leave it on the site

Wael believes that if large media organizations like Reuters and CNN hadn’t covered his case, that it was unlikely his account would have been restored, or that he would have been allowed to re-upload the videos.

Decisions to be made by YouTube:

• How do you determine the difference between a journalist/activist documenting violence and an account that is “glorifying” violence?
• Is there a way to determine the context of a video showing police brutality?
• Should content moderation decisions change based on whether or not a specific situation is getting mainstream press attention?
• Are there alternatives beyond shutting down an entire account based on complaints about some videos?

Questions and policy implications to consider:

• Should context play a bigger role in content moderation and if so, how can you take that into account? Or is it the responsibility of the account holder to supply the context?
• How do you manage moderation of content from a country with different rules than in the US?
• Will suspensions by US social media companies be used as evidence against the content creators in certain countries?

Resolution: As noted above, YouTube did reinstate his account, but as issues like this continued to arise, the company has adjusted its policies for handling violent but newsworthy content multiple times in the intervening years. At the time of writing this case study, Abbas’ videos showing Egyptian police brutality from many years ago now contain content warnings saying that the content “may be inappropriate for some viewers” and asking users to acknowledge that before being able to view the videos.

Abbas has faced many more content moderation challenges since then with his work in Egypt. Yahoo shut down his email account after getting complaints. Both Twitter and Facebook have suspended his accounts at times as well.

In both 2010 and 2018 Abbas was arrested in Egypt for his work, with Egyptian authorities using the social media account suspensions as evidence of his alleged crimes in “spreading fake news.”

Filed Under: content moderation, documenting, egypt, journalism, police brutality, reporting, wael abbas

Despite RIAA's Claim That YouTube-dl Is Infringing, Journalists Use It All The Time

from the substantial-non-infringing-uses dept

A few weeks ago we had a story about the RIAA getting GitHub to remove YouTube-dl using a bizarre form of copyright takedown. The RIAA claimed that the tool violated rules against circumventing DRM. Over at Freedom of the Press Foundation, Parker Higgins has highlighted how often this tool is used legitimately for journalism purposes, which is important. Under the Betamax standard, tools with substantial non-infringing uses should not run afoul of copyright law. Higgins' writeup is reposted here with permission.

The popular free software project “YouTube-dl” was removed from GitHub following a legal notice from the Recording Industry Association of America claiming it violates U.S. copyright law. According to the RIAA, the tool's “clear purpose” includes reproducing and distributing “music videos and sound recordings... without authorization.”

In fact, YouTube-dl is a powerful general purpose media tool that allows users to make local copies of media from a very broad range of sites. That versatility has secured it a place in the toolkits of many reporters, newsroom developers, and archivists. For now, the code remains available to download through YouTube-dl's own site, but the disruption of its development hub and the RIAA saber-rattling jeopardizes both the future of the software and the myriad journalistic workflows that depend on it.

Numerous reporters told Freedom of the Press Foundation that they rely on YouTube-dl when reporting on extremist or controversial content. &Oslashyvind Bye Skille, a journalist who has used YouTube-dl at the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and as a fact checker with Faktisk.no, said, “I have also used it to secure a good quality copy of video content from YouTube, Twitter, etc., in case the content gets taken down when we start reporting on it.” Skille pointed to a specific instance of videos connected to the terrorist murder of a Norwegian woman in Morocco. “Downloading the content does not necessarily mean we will re-publish it, but it is often important to secure it for documentation and further internal investigations.”

Justin Ling, a freelance investigative reporter who often covers security and extremism for outlets including Foreign Policy and VICE News, described the scenario of reporting on the rise of conspiracy theories as the relevant posts face removal and bans. YouTube “has been a crucial hub for QAnon organizing and propaganda: I've often used YouTube-dl to store those videos for my own benefit. Good thing, too, as YouTube often, without warning, mass-removes that sort of content, which can be ruinous for those of us using those YouTube accounts to trace the spread of these conspiracies.”

In other cases, local copies are necessary to conduct more rigorous analysis than is possible online, and journalists turn to YouTube-dl for the highest quality copy of the video available. John Bolger, a software developer and systems administrator who does freelance and data journalism, recounted the experience of reporting an award-winning investigation as the News Editor of the college paper the Hunter Envoy in 2012. In that story, the Envoy used video evidence to contradict official reports denying a police presence at an on-campus Occupy Wall Street protest.

“In order to reach my conclusions about the NYPD’s involvement... I had to watch this video hundreds of times—in slow motion, zoomed in, and looping over critical moments—in order to analyze the video I had to watch and manipulate it in ways that are just not possible” using the web interface. YouTube-dl is one effective method for downloading the video at the maximum possible resolution.

Jake, a member of the Chicago-based transparency group Lucy Parsons Labs, uses YouTube-dl to save copies of recorded incidents involving police use of force or abusive behavior. Once copied, the videos can be stored in an archive or modified before publication, such as by blurring the faces of bystanders or victims. “We have sometimes been able to take a closer look at individual frames after downloading with YouTube-dl to identify officers when they are not wearing their badges intentionally or obfuscating them with things to avoid accountability.”

One misinformation researcher told Freedom of the Press Foundation about using YouTube-dl to create a baseline for machine learning models developed to do automated real-time fact-checking. “While our production systems are designed to be used on live video streams, it's not feasible to test on live video. YouTube-dl allows us to greatly increase the speed of our research development and allow us to be able to actually test our software on a day-to-day basis, not just when politicians happen to have a speech.”

Similarly, a number of reporters described using YouTube-dl for nuts-and-bolts workflows such as transcribing videos they’re covering. Jeremy Gray, a data scientist with The Globe and Mail, described a Slack tool he provides to journalists to allow them to automatically transcribe their own interviews and, until Friday, to transcribe YouTube videos from a URL. “It used YouTube-dl, and now that part is broken.” Another journalist, who works at a “small-ish public media newsroom,” described a common situation where a reporter needs “a recording of a public meeting for a story but is on deadline and doesn’t want the hassle of recording the parts they want it in real time or wants the full file for something like AI transcription.”

That same journalist described how YouTube-dl helps address the challenge of incorporating user-generated content on-air. In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, their newsroom began expansive continuous coverage and sought to include photos and videos that locals had recorded. “We are scrupulous about making sure we get permission (and the person granting it actually owns the copyright), but especially right after an earthquake asking people to send the video to us specifically can be a much bigger ask than just allowing us to use it (if they even have a recording, which they probably don’t for a livestream), so often after getting permission I’d just download it straight from social media to transcode for TV.”

That use case is common. Reporters frequently need high-fidelity copies of video or audio tracks for publication or reporting. Ling, the freelance security reporter, said he also uses YouTube-dl to “get the best audio quality” when downloading copies of press conferences or news events “to grab snippets of audio for use in podcasts or radio work.”

Finally, numerous reporters described using YouTube-dl to download copies of their own works. Freedom of the Press Foundation has previously worked to help writers preserve portfolio copies of their articles, and to help full news archives stay online when the outlet itself is under threat. YouTube-dl plays an important role in that ecosystem as well.

GitHub has not publicly commented on its removal of one of its most popular repositories. Clearly, YouTube-dl in particular and the ability to download and manipulate online videos in general are an important part of the work of journalism and contemporary media literacy. Given the important role that YouTube-dl plays in public interest reporting and archiving, the RIAA’s efforts to have the tool removed represent an extraordinary overreach with the possibility for dramatic unforeseen consequences. We urge RIAA to reconsider its threat, and GitHub to reinstate the account in full.

Filed Under: circumvention, copyright, dmca 1201, downloads, journalism, non-infringing uses, youtube-dl
Companies: riaa, youtube